Latin America
The Caesar Temptation
Juan Gabriel Tokatlian
|
|
|
|
BUENOS AIRES – On June 28 a coup deposed Honduran President Manuel Zelaya, ending his attempt to hold a referendum that would permit his re-election. That same day in Argentina, former president Nestor Kirchner was defeated in a mid-term election that many people viewed as a test of whether or not he or his wife Cristina, Argentina’s current president and Nestor’s successor, would continue as president after the vote of 2011. Both events crystallized a peculiar Latin American phenomenon: the temptation to empower a new, local Caesar.
This “Caesarism” is not a new idea. Instead, it marks the return of a practice that had seemed to have been consigned to history’s dustbin which has now returned with a vengeance.
In 1919, the first edition of Democratic Caesarism , by the Venezuelan historian and sociologist Laureano Vallenilla Lanz, was published and widely circulated across the continent. Vallenilla claimed to be seeking an effective (as opposed to the formal) constitutional system for his country.
To achieve this end, Vallenilla argued that, at least in the case of Venezuela, a charismatic leader, confirmed in power through regular elections, would be best placed to concentrate political power successfully and guarantee institutional order. Ninety years later, it looks as though, with the rise of a variety of neo- caudillos , Vallenilla’s idea of the “good Caesar” is coming back.
Indeed, the victory of presidential incumbents across Latin America has become the predominant trend in the region’s elections. For most of the nineteenth century and well into the Cold War era, re-election of a sitting president was generally prohibited in the great majority of Latin American countries, owing to a general fear of leaders remaining permanently in power, abetted by the prevalence of electoral fraud.
Permanence and fraud are, of course, the hallmarks of authoritarian governments everywhere. In the last century, coups d’état were often the means by which (mostly military) rulers remained in power for many years, outlawing and persecuting the opposition. Nowadays, leaders are achieving the same end at the ballot box.
This phenomenon is relatively new. With Latin America’s most recent democratic transition, which began in the 1980’s, national constitutions and electoral laws were gradually reformed and modernized. Several democratically elected leaders urged constitutional modifications in order to remain in power.
Over time, what had been an exception became routine: the possibility of consecutive terms or alternating re-election of presidents in countries with little democratic tradition. This trend was accompanied by the fact that these societies were marked by a high degree of inequality, as well as unstable economies, weak political parties, fragmented oppositions, and fragile institutions. Indeed, in Latin America today there are 14 representative democracies that allow presidential re-election: seven consecutively and seven discontinuously.
But something new has recently been introduced in Latin America’s political system: the notion of unlimited re-election. Hugo Chávez first achieved this in Venezuela, and there are other specters of potentially perpetual re-elections. In the Dominican Republic, Leonel Fernández (1996-2000, 2004-2008, 2008-2012) began serving his third four-year term in office in 2008, and the party in power has not ruled out the possibility of modifying the Carta Magna to allow him yet another term.
In Colombia, Álvaro Uribe (2002-2006, 2006-2010), in power since 2002, got his chance for a first re-election in 2006 through a questionable constitutional reform, and appears set to try for a third term by forcing a referendum to amend the constitution again. In Brazil, Luis Inácio Lula da Silva, in power since 2003, was re-elected in 2007, and now many members of his party are pushing for a constitutional reform that would allow him a third term.
In a recent interview with the British journalist David Frost, Nicaragua’s President Daniel Ortega, who returned to power in 2006, declared himself in favor of immediate re-election. Before having completed a year in office, Fernando Lugo, President of Paraguay, declared himself in favor of presidential re-election, currently prohibited in his country. In Bolivia and Ecuador, immediate re-election is already possible. In short, Latin America appears to be becoming a region of democracy by plebiscite.
Many of the presidents re-elected, either directly or by alternating terms with someone else, a la the Kirchners, won because they seemed to be responding to social demands for more security or less poverty. So Latin America is now constantly presented with “extraordinary” situations that supposedly require a certain individual, such as a great, benevolent cacique , to occupy the center of the political scene and govern with an enormous discretionary capacity.
But, as the English philosopher Jeremy Bentham once wrote, the more one is exposed to the exercise of political power, the greater the temptations. True to that dictum, the excessive personalization of politics, the search for political hegemony, and the fragmentation of the opposition reflected in Latin America’s neo-caesarism have served to concentrate power in the executive and hollow out countervailing institutions, including intermediary bodies between the state and society.
The attraction of remaining in power is getting stronger across the region. In view of this, it is essential to seek better systems of checks and balances as well as to strengthen and sharpen public control of the executive.
All of these tasks are domestic; the danger posed by the profusion of re-elected presidents will not be checked by external forces. Moreover, since Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo, the United States has lost its formerly strong authority in promoting democracy. Confused and self-absorbed, Europe is not in the best position to wield influence. Russia and China continue to apply their own authoritarian formulas at home and have little to offer internationally to curb caudillismo .
So the problem of democratic caesarism is one for Latin America’s people to confront. They will either reject this trend, or succumb to it.
Juan Gabriel Tokatlian is Professor of International Relations at the Universidad de Di Tella, Argentina.
Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2009.
www.project-syndicate.org
You might also like to read more from Juan Gabriel Tokatlian or return to our home page.
|
|
pendolino 06:36 13 Jul 09
much of what you posit re. the caesar complex is endemic to the arab world and with that it shares quite a few of the traits of latin america. the key to changing this is the development of the people to know how to properly assert their rights and apply them once they have won them. a classic chicken and egg problem at its simplest and a herculean feat on a national and regional scale. time will be the arbiter in all cases.
thank you for your insightful writing.
sigi76 03:43 12 Jul 09
Sir,
Thank you for this nice contribution, although the prospect is very disturbing.
We all know what happened to Caesar and what happened to Rome afterwards. Is that what we should ask for in the 21st century?
However, as usual, comparisons are difficult. Latin American countries are not like Rome, Latin America is not like the Roman Empire. On the contrary. Probably except Chile, most countries never became independent from the original conquerors' countries in Europe - standing in their own right - really.
Even if they seemed to do so for some while - like Argentina in the beginning of the 20th century and Brasil now - they could not manage to develop a true democracy with strong administrative infrastructures.
Rather governments' interest had been to destroy identity, trust, high quality education and independence of the powers (judicial, executive, legislative). Socialistic ideologies - like the empty and brainless modelo in Argentina - are misused to maintain power by administrations. Elites, Church and syndicates keep countries hostages. Argentina is a very sad example of this situation.
It is as the sociological theory of configuration describes it: it is in nobodies interest to install good government, to tackle corruption, to be honest with regard to the situation of the country (be it with regard to economy, culture, science or distribution of wealth or even health), to have justice and the serious possibilty to enforce the law for everybody in the same way. However everybody keeps telling, they want to reach these goals.
In Rome the rightful citizens of Rome represented the moral authority. In the end, the rulers (Senat or dictators) knew, they could not rule against the people, because the people would kill them and dishonor their families and their memory, as has happened several times in Rome.
Unfortunately there is no such moral authority in Latin American countries, although everybody seems to long for it.
I would have loved to see some alternatives: how to find viable solutions especially from the perspectives of the science on International Relations since we are living in a globalised world.